EU must display Moralpolitik over Ukraine muddle

THE massive demonstrations calling for fair elections in Ukraine ought to persuade the European Union’s leaders to replace their traditional Realpolitik towards their eastern neighbours, in particular Russia, with a new Moralpolitik.

Tens of thousands of people are defying the November snow in Kiev and are taking to the streets to protest against the fraudulent elections which might bring to power a new pro-Russia president.

Political turmoil is increasing as opposition leaders challenge the authorities to admit that the vote was rigged. The opposition claims the election was stolen by the state from pro-western candidate Viktor Yushchenko in favour of pro-Russia Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich.

Since the second-round vote of the presidential election is contested, a third round may yet take place on the streets, as people do not want to go home before the government admits and corrects the electoral fraud. The manifestations could easily degenerate into violent riots.

At the risk of an unpleasant EU-Russia summit today (Thursday), the EU should provide whatever protection it can for the people on the streets of Kiev, whose right to elect their president freely has been trampled upon. The stakes are high, because the Ukrainians are about to make a choice for a new society.

There is a sense of déjà vu on the streets of Kiev and a flavour of Georgia’s ‘rose revolution’. Standing in the rain outside the parliament building in the capital Tbilisi exactly a year ago, to protest against fraudulent parliamentary elections, Georgians removed the then president Eduard Shevardnadze, the father of the post-Soviet Union nation but also a Soviet-era type of leader. The opposition’s candidate, Mikhail Saakashvili, was declared the winner and is now planning to engage the country on a path of democratic and economic reforms, to emancipate it from its Soviet inheritance.

Will Ukrainians have the same luck? The EU should help them to take the Georgian way, if free elections show that this is what the people want.

The EU’s representatives must request the authorities of Kiev to investigate all complaints about the conduct of the elections as well as the conditions under which the campaign took place, to undertake a recount of votes and, if necessary, organize a re-run of the election.

Following reports from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and numerous groups of observers, including a delegation of MEPs, it is clear that the elections were anything but correct and democratic. The question is how to make the regime, which orchestrated the fraud, to accept that – and without violence.

Above all, the Union’s representatives should avoid expressing a preference for one of the candidates in the election: they should criticize the flaws of the electoral process, not its result.

As Russia entered the picture supporting the Kiev regime, warning the EU that its criticism was a provocation to violence in Ukraine, the question that might be asked is, ‘the EU – how many divisions?’ What instruments does the Union have to back up its stance? What can it offer, that Moscow cannot?

The EU should stress that its partnership with Ukraine can only develop if the country adheres to democratic principles and that the quality of EU-Ukraine relations will depend very much on the quality of democracy in the country.

An action plan between the EU and Ukraine, in the framework of the EU’s Neighbourhood Policy, was to be adopted in December. This would be the most important step in bringing Ukraine closer to the Union. The EU should warn that it would be badly affected by a fraudulent poll.

The negotiations on the action plan have been concluded recently. But if Kiev does not present a fair election result, it could be renegotiated. If things go wrong on the streets of Kiev, member states should put the action plan on hold and even think of diplomatic sanctions, as it did in the case of Belarus.

The Union should remain adamant that it will only do business with a democratically elected leader in Kiev. Such a president might bring important economic benefits, not least conferral of market economy status, when the conditions have been met, and free trade. But a Soviet-style president brought to power by rigged elections would delay such benefits indefinitely.

The keynote speaker at the 20th anniversary celebration of the European Medicines Agency offered some challenges to conventional thinking about the next 20 years – including carefully calculated provocations of his hosts.